Making the Jump?

[billsh]

Ok guys. I admit I'm still shooting film. I'm looking to make the jump to digital but concerned about the time spent in PS. My question for this group is "How much time do you spend editing your pics?"

I know this depends on whom, and what shot, etc. But before I would be curious about some generalizations. I have discussed this with a local wedding photographer and he spends huge amounts of time, but that is to be expected.

Thanks for your input.

[cmM]

as you said, it depends.
If I shoot sport, I post process in as little as 30secs/picture (using actions, etc...). If I shoot an abstract photograph, a landscape, macro, I spend more time and do things manually, and that can take up to 10 minutes or more.
Wedding photography these days means shooting 10GB of photos and then picking out the good ones. That takes a long time, but if you have a good workflow it's doable without pulling your hair out.

How much time do you spend in your darkroom ?

[CyberDyneSystems]

You can ease into Post gradually. You can shoot jpegs with parameters set in the camera and merely use PP to crop and print.

Or you shoot RAW and post process to your hearts content.

As to the question..

I spend anywhere from 30 seconds to 30 minutes on a single image. Totally depends on the image itself and how much I am willing to work to get the most from it.

[Andy_T]

How much time does it cost you now to have your images printed?

You could look for a 1D (Mark1) it is rumored to require only very little post processing.

Best regards,
Andy

[billsh]

I use a local lab for 8X10's and smaller. If I want larger prints, I use their darkroom, and that does take a lot of time as my experience is limited.

Since I shoot mostly wildlife, (animals not parties) I'm hoping the PS work would be less. I do shoot a few portraits and weddings to fund my habit, and I would expect the editing time to be greater for those pictures.

I guess I'm spoiled to handing over my film and getting good prints back.

Thanks
Bill

[JZaun]

billsh
Go digital!!!!! Period. You will love it after you get started. You can shoot Jpeg as CDS said and set up the parameters in the camera so you take the mem card to the photo shop and they still print or you can touch up your favorites or go whole hog and do it all, post process, and print. Wow you will not be sorry and it will save a ton on film and developing shots you just throw away anyhow! You can take 300 pic's and keep only 1 and not cost a penny!!!

God I love digital!!! :D :D :D

JZ

[roanjohn]

Don't let post-processing intimidate you.

Learn it........

ANd before you know it, you'll be thinking of all the time you could've saved being in that darkroom.

.................unless you drop your films at the local drugstore.

In any case, PP is and should be fun and easy.

Ro1

[aam1234]

Jpeg is not as bad as some people say. Check out the Sep. issue of Outdoor Photography. They have an article about Raw vs. Jpeg. I didn't read it, but people were discussing it in another forum. Check it out.

[billsh]

Thanks for the encouragement Ro.

I don't use the local drug store. Good personal friend has a great lab, so I've enjoyed great lab service.


Thanks
Bill

[Big_B]

You can ease into Post gradually. You can shoot jpegs with parameters set in the camera and merely use PP to crop and print.

Or you shoot RAW and post process to your hearts content.

As to the question..

I spend anywhere from 30 seconds to 30 minutes on a single image. Totally depends on the image itself and how much I am willing to work to get the most from it.

Exactly what CDS said.... oh and the link that aam was talking about can be found here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39756&highlight=raw

Go digital!!! I held back on buying a DSLR for ages (because of the money). I am so glad I made the move because digital has really helped me develop my skills. I'm no longer afraid of taking a picture 'because it might not come out'.

[aam1234]

Sorry Big_B, I wasn't referring to that link. I was talking about an article in "Outdoor Photography" magazine.

From what I gathered from that discussion is that many pro's shoot and prefer Jpeg (plz let's not start Raw vs. Jpeg here).

[dsze]

Post processing is half the fun. I used to shoot film on my AE-1 and like you had good labs process them...and was pretty happy. But now, knowing that I will post process myself in PS, I shoot 90% of my shots (guessing) with a specific post-processing method in mind. That added control over my images that I didn't have with film (because I was limited in the darkroom) is invaluable. You'll love the added control PP gives you... go for it.

forgot to add: I just recently started shooting a very limited # of weddings as well and I am just now finishing up the post processing for my first wedding. I think a fair estimate would be about 15 hours of post processing for the 550 photos I took (mostly RAW). But I also developed several actions which took time, and will hopefully make the next wedding go a little quicker.

-daniel

[aam1234]

Hi dsze,

Been seeing many statements like these Post processing is half the fun

Not sure everybody agrees with that. Personally, I find PP a major headache. But hey, that's just me.

[robertwgross]

Don't let post-processing intimidate you.

Learn it........


Exactly. Start your editing education on-the-job with less important photos. Each week, you learn another tool or so in the editing software. After a while, you are ready to graduate from less important photos to wedding photos or something.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

---Bob Gross---